I’m serious. Are you OK with the tactics the SEIU leadership – and 500 members – took when they headed into a residential area to “protest” at the home of Greg Baer, deputy general council for corporate law at Bank of America? They did not just protest. They surrounded the house, got on the porch, used bullhorns and started screaming. Pure intimidation.

Unfortunately, the teen son of Baer was home alone at the time. He had to lock himself inside the bathroom and wait for help that would not be provided by the police.

The media and talking head liberals have remained quiet about this mob surrounding the home of a bank executive and terrorizing a teenager eight days ago, but they continue to express concern about TEA Party protests around the country and suggest they set a bad tone.

Are they friggin’ kidding me?

These SEUI members are the mob of our time. That’s right, I said members. Sure, leadership gurus like former SEUI president Andy Stern – who by the way now sits on the president’s Fiscal Responsibility Commission – may be egging the members on, but this intimidation purely falls on the membership who did this.

You terrorized a teenage kid in his home. Feel big and powerful? Proud of yourselves? Thugs … all of you.

Nina Easton, Washington bureau chief for Fortune, Fox Contributor and neighbor of Baer, recalls the mob scene and provides us with the image. Click to enlarge.

Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.

Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. He made his way through a din of barked demands and insults from the activists who proudly “outed” him, and slipped through his front door.

“Excuse me,” Baer told his accusers, “I need to get into the house. I have a child who is alone in there and frightened.”

Easton sums up…

In the 1990s, the Baers’ former bosses, Bill and Hillary Clinton, denounced the “politics of personal destruction.” Today politicians and their voters of all stripes grieve the ugly bitterness that permeates our policy debates. Now, with populist rage providing a useful cover, it appears we’ve crossed into a new era: The politics of personal intimidation.

Big Government writes about this story here, here, here and here. Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog also writes. Main stream media outlets? President Obama? Democrat leadership? Crickets.

Easton – because she simply took a picture and wrote about what happened – has become a secondary target for the SEIU. Disgusting intimidation.

“The politics of personal intimidation.” When have the tea party protesters done anything like this? How does “never” sound to you liberals? They never done anything like this. They’ve NEVER terrorized a man’s children. That’s something that only Democrats are loathsome enough to do.

When Greg Baer’s terrified 14-year old son called him, Greg called the police. Do you know what they told him? They said that they feared the protest would turn into a violent riot if they showed up, so they wouldn’t show up. And Greg Baer was left with the difficult decision of whether to leave his younger son alone in his car so he could go through the screaming mob gantlet to go into his home to save his older son.

Our society is breaking down into a fuzzy mess of political correctness. We are making ourselves more and more stupid. We seem to dare not deal with dangerous people – such as terrorists, illegal immigrants, and SEIU thugs terrorizing children – while increasing attention is paid to little old ladies who might get so angry they’ll go to the extremes of calling their congressman.

And when the political left and their media representatives demonize the tea parties for their peaceful demonstrations and falsely depict them as “hateful,” we should give them ANY respect whatsoever WHY, exactly?

But they haven’t mentioned the numerous documented recent instances of unhinged leftwing protests. The same media that publishes fictitious demagogic innuendo never seems to care when the left commits actual violence and “hate.”

When pro-illegal immigration Latinos used refried beans to paint swastikas on the Arizona capital, the mainstream media largely ignored it. When hundreds of violent pro-illegal immigration protesters attacked a man and then threw rocks and water bottles at retreating police, the mainstream media largely ignored it. When the American political left demonstrated that it was even less tolerant and more violent than Nazis, the mainstream media largely ignored it. When a liberal mob chased down and physically attacked a pair of Republicans, the mainstream media largely ignored it. And when instance after instance of actual violence has occurred perpetrated by the left, the mainstream media has basically ignored it.

The next time the left and the leftist media criticize conservatives for their protest style, just realize that they are very full of something that is very brown and very stinky.

(CBS) President Obama has noticed the “vitriol” in the nation’s political atmosphere these days and says it’s time both sides cooled it.

In a brief interview with “The Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith Thursday before they shot some hoops on the White House basketball court, Mr. Obama called the extreme nature of some of the barbs directed his way on conservative talk shows “troublesome.” He also said he’s “concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized” – an observation meant for both Republicans and Democrats.

The remarks came in response to Smith telling him he’s been listening to talk radio and “the kindest of terms you’re sometimes referred to out in America is ‘a Socialist.’ The worst of which I’ve heard is — called ‘a Nazi.”‘

Asked by Smith whether he’s “aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation” about him, Mr. Obama replied, “Well — I mean, I think that — when you’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck it’s …”

“It’s beyond that,” Smith interjected.

“It’s pretty – apparent,” the president continued, “and — it’s troublesome. But — you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of — this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when — you’ve got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling that there’s a lot of change that needs to take place. But that’s not the vast majority of Americans.”

We don’t know what Harry Smith was going to say after, “It’s beyond that.” It would seem he was going to point out the obvious fact that a LOT more people than just Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck listeners are white hot angry with Obama, based on all the polls. I would further point out that as someone who routinely listens to both programs I am fairly certain that neither Limbaugh or Beck have EVER called Obama a “Nazi,” and that in point of fact Obama is quite actually demonizing Limbaugh and Beck in making that implication.

Obama says we should cool the “vitriol,” and then immediately starts vitriolically demagoguery conservatives. I would tell Obama that if he doesn’t like vitriol, maybe he should stop using it so damn much. And if he doesn’t like demonization, why won’t he quit demonizing?

“There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You‘re a fascist—get them to print you a T-shirt with “fascist” on it.”

Then there was Sheldon Drobny, the financial power behind the ultimately failed liberal radio station Air America. He writes that “Very few Americans know that Prescott Bush, our president’s grandfather, supplied Nazi Germany with such assistance.” Based on what historical source? Lyndon LaRouche, socialist meathead. In the same article, Air America’s founder says:

The corporate masters and their current spokesman, George W. Bush, promote a dangerous policy of pre-emptive warfare. They use exactly the same excuses Hitler used to sell to the public his maniacal desire to conquer Europe. The real power for Hitler came from his corporate backers, who willingly supplied him the tools to execute his plan, their reward being profit.

Anyway, Chris Matthews apparently heard Obama talk about conservative “vitriol” and the name “Rush Limbaugh” and took it as a command from his messiah who makes his leg tingle to demonize Rush Limbaugh for whatever Matthews could twist as being “vitriolic.” And the evil-monger word of the day became “regime.”

On Friday, I asked Rush Limbaugh for his response to President Obama’s description of him as “troublesome” and of his program as “vitriol.” Limbaugh told me he does not believe Obama is trying to do what is best for the country and added, “Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely.”

By using the word “regime,” Limbaugh was doing something he does all the time: throwing the language of the opposition back in their faces. In the Bush years, we often heard the phrase “Bush regime” from some quarters of the left. So Limbaugh applied it to Obama.

Apparently some people didn’t get it. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. “I’ve never seen language like this in the American press,” he said, “referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election — we will have another one in November, we’ll have another one for president in a couple years — fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, ‘regime.’ It was used by George Bush, ‘regime change.’ You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They’re juntas. They’re military coups. The use of the word ‘regime’ in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it.”

Matthews didn’t stop there. “I never heard the word ‘regime,’ before, have you?” he said to NBC’s Chuck Todd. “I don’t even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a ‘regime.'”

It appears that Matthews has suffered a major memory loss. I don’t have the facilities to search for every utterance of Joe McCarthy, but a look at more recent times reveals many, many, many examples of the phrase “Bush regime.” In fact, a search of the Nexis database for “Bush regime” yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present.

It was used 16 times in the New York Times, beginning with an April 4, 2001 column by Maureen Dowd — who wrote, “Seventy-five days into the Bush regime and I’m a wreck” — and ending with a March 6, 2009 editorial denouncing the “frightening legal claim advanced by the Bush regime to justify holding [accused terrorist Ali al-Marri].”

“Bush regime” was used 24 times in the Washington Post, beginning with a January 22, 2001 profile of Marshall Wittmann by Howard Kurtz — who noted that Wittmann served as “a Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary in the first Bush regime” — and ending with an October 6, 2009 column by Dana Milbank which quoted far-left antiwar protester Medea Benjamin questioning whether the Obama administration “looks very different from the Bush regime.”

Perhaps Matthews missed all of those references. If he did, he still might have heard the phrase the many times it was uttered on his own network, MSNBC. For example, on January 8 of this year, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak said that, “In George Bush’s regime, only one million jobs had been created…” On August 21, 2009, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz referred to something that happened in 2006, when “the Bush regime was still in power.” On October 8, 2007, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that “the middle class has not fared quite as well under Bush regime as…” On August 10, 2007, MSNBC played a clip of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan referring to “the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime.” On September 21, 2006, a guest referred to liberals “expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime.” On July 7, 2004, Ralph Nader — appearing with Matthews on “Hardball” — discussed how he would “take apart the Bush regime.” On May 26, 2003, Joe Scarborough noted a left-wing website that “has published a deck of Bush regime playing cards.” A September 26, 2002 program featured a viewer email that said, “The Bush regime rhetoric gets goofier and more desperate every day.”

Finally — you knew this was coming — on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”

Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?

In other words, at the very, very worst, the left can really only accuse the right of doing the very things that the left themselves have repeatedly done. They are in effect saying, “How DARE you be loathsome vile cockroaches like us! WE’RE the loathsome vile cockroaches in this country. That’s OUR THING!!!”

If the mainstream media were in any way honest, they would be reporting, “Left accuses right of being nearly as vile as left.” But they AREN’T honest. So they report Bart Stupak’s receiving hateful phone calls from the right after voting for ObamaCare, but ignore the fact that Stupak received hateful phone calls from the left when he said he would vote against ObamaCare.

The media is largely comprised of fundamentally dishonest people distorting the actual picture due to very-left-of-center political ideology and worldview.

And Sarah Palin’s “reload” comment was every bit as “hateful” or “inciting” as Barack Obama’s “Fired up!” His statement was properly understood in context, while Sarah Palin’s statement was stripped of context and demonized, but a fundamentally dishonest media.

Most of the mainstream media are not journalists. They are propagandists.